On 11/23/21 11:44, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 11/22/21 23:31, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> >> (Catching up ...) > > Welcome back! :) > >> The maths looked reasonable. > > Thanks! > >> Did you have a version of the patch for review? > > No, not yet. Wanted to clear the style questions on the new code (the > additions) at first. Next, I'll have to work those additions (the > fallback code) into your original patch -- I'll steal the way you check > for the necessity of the fallback etc. > > (Meanwhile I've worked on RHBZ#1931821, with the realization that the > "dosfstools" change was inexcusable, and either way, we need "parted" to > learn dealing with the bogus partition table.) > >> My only other thought is that a simple set of tests could be good. >> However it's not worth having tests that only test if __builtin* >> functions are correct (hopefully GCC is already testing that). So >> tests would have to check the fallback macros are correct, even if >> they are not used on the current platform. > > So: the fallbacks need to be available (= built) in the source code > unconditionally, so they can be directly called by the test suite. The > actual "falling back" to them must be separate. Is that what you mean?
... should this go into common/replacements, or common/utils? The former seems like a better fit. On the other hand, libnbd (assuming we'll want to port the same to libnbd) does not have common/replacements at all... Thanks Laszlo _______________________________________________ Libguestfs mailing list Libguestfs@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libguestfs
